Ankush Manro vs Rajinder Singh And others

Daya Chaudhary, J

CM No.4781-CII of 2013

Allowed as prayed for.

CR No.1287 of 2013

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2012, vide which, application moved by the petitioner for releasing amount of FDR has been dismissed.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that father of petitioner, namely, Sh. Parveen Kumar died on 30.01.1997 in a motor accident. A claim petition bearing MACT No.9 of 12.06.1997 was filed, which was allowed and the claimants were granted compensation of Rs. 4,22,400/-. The present petitioner was granted 25% of the Award. It was mentioned in the Award that the amount be deposited in FDR in any scheduled Bank till he attains the age of 21 years. The date of birth of the petitioner is 14.01.1994 and he attained majority on 14.01.2012. Petitioner is pursuing his course of B.Sc. and is in need of money. He moved an application for withdrawal of amount of FDR, which was dismissed on 30.11.2012.

The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order passed in the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has become major as he has attained the age of 18 years and is in urgent need of money. There is no other male member in the family and he is dependent upon his mother only. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgments of this Court in Dharam Pal vs. Hoshiyar Singh and others, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 806, Tarun Chabbra vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal and others, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 596, Ranbir Singh and others vs. Karnail Singh and others, 2010 (1) AICJ 496, Neelam and another vs. Chhabil Dass and others, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 492, Indra Devi vs. Dharam Singh & Ors., 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 762, Kailashi Devi vs. New India Assurance Ltd. & others, 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 362 and Rakesh vs. Dilawar Singh and others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 282.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the case file.

Admittedly, the petitioner was claimant in the claim petition and was awarded compensation which was directed to be deposited in FDR and the same was to be withdrawn on attaining age of 21 years. On attaining age of majority i.e., 18 years, the petitioner moved an application for withdrawal of said amount which has been declined on the ground that as per Award, the amount can be withdrawn on attaining age of 21 years. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are relevant as in those cases also, the condition imposed by the Tribunal was modified keeping in view the interest of the parties.

In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994(2) PLR 01, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon certain principles enunciated in Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584 and Muljibhai vs. United India Insurance Co. Limited, (1982) 23 (1) Gujarat Law Reported 756, directed the Tribunal to observe the guidelines noticed in para No.17 of the said judgment, which are reproduced as under: -

"(i) The Claims Tribunals should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn;

(ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property, such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a rogue to withdraw money;

(iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out in (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding any existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid;

(iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to so order;

(v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above.

(vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary, the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment;

(vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposits is made it should be on condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be;

(viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawals in case of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than one fixed deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R can be liquidated."

The judgment in Muljibhai's case (supra) was followed by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Kamlaben and others, 1993 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter, 779. This judgment of the Full Bench became the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in the case of Lilaben Udesing Gohel Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1605, and other connected matters. Simultaneously, another Public Interest Litigation also came to be filed before the Apex Court challenging the directions issued regarding deposit of the compensation amount. All these connected matters were decided by the Apex Court in Lilaben Udesing Ghoel's case (Supra). The Apex Court on consideration of the entire issue approved the guidelines in Muljibhai's case (Supra) as approved in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (Supra) and made further observations which thus reads as under:-

"Before we part we must observe that even though the guidelines laid down in Muljibhai's case have been approved and applied by this Court in the aforementioned two cases, many Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and even some of the High Courts in other parts of the country do not follow them. We are also told that in claims that are settled in or outside the Court or Tribunal, including Lok Adalats or Lok Nyayalayas, these guidelines are overlooked. We would like to make it absolutely clear that in all cases in which compensation is awarded for injury caused in a motor accident, whether by way of adjudication or agreement between the parties the Court/Tribunal must apply these guidelines. We must add one further guideline to the effect that when the amount is invested in a fixed deposit, the bank should invariably be directed to affix a note on the Fixed Deposit Receipt that no loan or advance should be granted on the strength of the said FDR without the express permission of the Court/Tribunal which ordered the deposit. This will eliminate the practice of taking loans which may be upto 80% of the amount invested and thereby defeating the very purpose of the order. We do hope that the Courts/Tribunals in the country will not succumb to the temptation of permitting huge withdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claim. We are sure that the Courts/Tribunals will realise their duty towards the victims of the accident so that a large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victims of unscrupulous persons and unethical agreements or arrangements. We do hope our anxiety to protect the claimants from exploitation by such elements will be equally shared by the Courts/Tribunals".

In view of directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in judgments as mentioned above, the Tribunals started issuing directions for deposit of the amounts of compensation in nationalised banks to safeguard the interest of the claimants and also to ensure that the compensation amount is not frittered away in the hands of the unscrupulous persons. The guidelines are exhaustive enough to prevent the compensation flowing into hands of unscrupulous persons just not to deprive the victims of the accidents or their heirs from utilizing the amount of compensation for the well being of the family.

Admittedly, the present petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. Keeping in view the interest of the minor, the amount of compensation was directed to be deposited by way of FDR in a nationalised bank. The purpose of depositing the amount of compensation was to ensure the payment at the time of right occasion. The petitioner moved an application on attaining age of majority but the same was dismissed on technical grounds without taking into consideration the genuine need of the petitioner. The petitioner is pursuing his studies and there is no other male member in the family. He has stated himself to be dependent upon his mother and to maintain himself and to pursue his studies, he is in need of money. The purpose and object of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is to ensure that the compensation amount may not go in the hands of unscrupulous persons. It is also the object of the guidelines to over come their financial difficulty and accordingly, the compensation is for well being of the family of the deceased-victim of the accident. In case, the amount of compensation is not allowed to be utilized, then no purpose would be served. The reason for withdrawal appears to be genuine.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in H.S. Ahammed Hussain vs. Irfan Ahammed, 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563 has observed that where the amount is required by the parents of the victim of accident, there is no necessity to issue directions of deposit of the amount in a nationalised bank. The observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the amount of compensation payable to mothers of the victims should not have been directed to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the mothers should not be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. In case, the amounts have not been already invested, the same shall be paid to the mothers, but if, however, invested by depositing the same in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, there may be its premature withdrawal in case the parties so intend".

This view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court was again reiterated in case of Lilaben Udesing Gohel vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1996 (3) RCR (Civil) 18. Para No.17 of the said judgment reads as under: -

"17. Before we part we must observe that even though the guidelines laid down in Muljibhai's case have been approved and applied by this Court in the aforementioned two cases, many Motor accidents Claims Tribunals and even some of the High Courts in other parts of the country do not follow them. We are also told that in claims that are settled in or outside the Court or Tribunal, including Lok Adalats or Lok Nyayalayas, these guidelines are overlooked. We would like to make it absolutely clear that in all cases in which compensation is awarded for injury caused in a motor accident, whether by way of adjudication or agreement between the parties the Court/Tribunal must apply these guidelines. We must add one further guideline to the effect that when the amount is invested in a fixed deposit, the bank should invariably be directed to affix a note on the Fixed Deposit Receipt that no loan or advance should be granted on the strength of the said FDR without the express permission of the Court/Tribunal which ordered the deposit. This will eliminate the practice of taking loans which may be up to 80% of the amount invested and thereby defeating the very purpose of the order. We do hope that the Courts/Tribunal in the country will not succumb to the temptation of permitting huge withdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claim. We are sure that the Courts/Tribunals will realise their duty towards the victims of the accident so that a large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victims of unscrupulous persons and unethical agreements or arrangements. We do hope our anxiety to protect the claimants from exploitation by such elements will be equally shared by the Courts/Tribunals."

This view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been consistently followed and guide-lines as laid down in the Union Carbide Corporation, etc., etc., Vs. Union of India, etc. etc.

(supra) are being enforced. Even the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.S. Ahammed Hussain Vs. Irfan Ahammed (supra) is on the facts of the said case and does not lay down the law that in every case an adult member is entitled to withdraw the FDR as was sought to be contended.

In the present case, the release of FDR has been sought for maintenance and to pursue studies, which appears to be genuine. Learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the release of FDR in favour of the petitioner but the same has been declined in a mechanical manner without seeing the interest of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside and direction is issued to release the share of compensation of the petitioner deposited with the Bank. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw premature release of the FDR from the concerned Bank. The Bank authorities are also directed to release the amount after proper verification.